Bloomberg Says Interpretation of Constitution Will ‘Have to Change’ After Boston Bomb

Like I said, more police state is coming. The scared sheeple will obey too.

In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Monday the country’s interpretation of the Constitution will “have to change” to allow for greater security to stave off future attacks....

The mayor pointed to the gun debate and noted the courts have allowed for increasingly stringent regulations in response to ever-more powerful weapons.

Heller is notable because it enshrined the principle of personal safety into the Constitution, and paved the way for incorporation.

I understand this is most likely new to you, and it sounds counter-intuitive, but for most of American history, the Bill of Rights were not as expansive as they are today.

They just were meant to put more restraint on the Federal govt as the states feared they would get swallowed up. They were added in order to ensure ratification.

But here's where you're wrong—it's a natural fundamental right meaning it precedes any govt. It traces back to English history where arms "had been regarded as a long-established natural right in English law, auxiliary to the natural and legally defensible rights to life." ( wikipedia)

"The historical link between the English Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment, which both codify an existing right and do not create a new one, has been acknowledged by the U.S. Supreme Court." ( wikipedia)

I find it odd that the left speaks for incorporation all the time on other social issues but doesn't on guns. I hardly think any Framer or Founding Father would have approved of any state passing a ban on guns. If they felt they needed the right to fight a tyrannical govt, it wouldn't be possible if all states banned guns. It defies the idea of the "security of a free state."

What's sad is that the same people who tell you that the second amendment was only talking about militias have intentionally done everything they can to turn the word militia into something nearly synonymous with terrorist.

It's sad that you honestly think this is accurate. It's so stunningly ignorant that I'm not even sure where to begin. It's literally like talking to a delusional psychopath... I am at a loss as to how to find anything close to common ground to anchor the debate on.

Perhaps we could discuss the holding of United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)? Are you familiar with the case?

What's sad is that the same people who tell you that the second amendment was only talking about militias have intentionally done everything they can to turn the word militia into something nearly synonymous with terrorist.

That's because we have the National Guard now. Outside of that, militias are pretty much, well, yeah domestic extremist groups.

They just were meant to put more restraint on the Federal govt as the states feared they would get swallowed up. They were added in order to ensure ratification.

But here's where you're wrong—it's a natural fundamental right meaning it precedes any govt. It traces back to English history where arms "had been regarded as a long-established natural right in English law, auxiliary to the natural and legally defensible rights to life." ( wikipedia)

"The historical link between the English Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment, which both codify an existing right and do not create a new one, has been acknowledged by the U.S. Supreme Court." ( wikipedia)

I find it odd that the left speaks for incorporation all the time on other social issues but doesn't on guns. I hardly think any Framer or Founding Father would have approved of any state passing a ban on guns. If they felt they needed the right to fight a tyrannical govt, it wouldn't be possible if all states banned guns. It defies the idea of the "security of a free state."

As you point out, incorporation is only for "fundamental rights." Whether a right is fundamental or not -- there's some interpretive leeway allowed there. I think McDonald is a legitimate interpretation, but it's certainly not the traditional one.

Perhaps we could discuss the holding of United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)? Are you familiar with the case?

I hope to God you are joking. The Miller ruling does NOT support your position no matter how hard your tiny brain tries to shoehorn it into that role. Also, you are pinning your hopes on what is easily the most embarrassing Supreme Court in the entire history of the United States. The Hughes court was a ****ing joke.

I hope to God you are joking. The Miller ruling does NOT support your position no matter how hard your tiny brain tries to shoehorn it into that role. Also, you are pinning your hopes on what is easily the most embarrassing Supreme Court in the entire history of the United States. The Hughes court was a ****ing joke.

Here's my position: the 2nd Amendment's traditional meaning was that it was intrinsically tied into the operation of a state militia. You don't think U.S. v. Miller supports that position?

I also don't see why your opinion on the Hughes court is relevant here.

Here's my position: the 2nd Amendment's traditional meaning was that it was intrinsically tied into the operation of a state militia. You don't think U.S. v. Miller supports that position?

I also don't see why your opinion on the Hughes court is relevant here.

Yes the Miller decision was "militia" based which was wrong to begin with BUT if you read the entire decision they make a concerted effort to broadly define militia and show that the de facto effect of the 2nd Amendment is to allow for every male citizens to legally keep their own arms. While this was an ass backwards way to come to a conclusion that had been accepted all along, it still came to the proper conclusion... one you seem too ****ing stupid to get.

US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE
WASHINGTON DC 20515-2702
LEE TERRY 2nd district NE.

Dear Mr. Livesteam
Thank you for taking the time to contact me with your concerns regarding gun control and mental health. I appreciate learning your views on this matter.

As a proud member of the NRA,my record has always been solid when it comes to gun control. I believe that an essential element to a FREE SOCIETY is the right to responsible gun ownership. The second Amendment to our Constitution binds me as your Congressman not to infringe this right,and I have no intention of doing so.Gun ownership under the Second Amendment is a right, not a privilege to be conferred by government. It is therefore incumbent upon me and all other elected officials to protect this right.

Like you I believe that we must address the mental health issues that are too often overlooked in this debate.

__________________
[QUOTE=Lex Luthor;13914064]I don't know any such thing. What I do know is that Trump rose to power in exactly the same way Hitler did:

Yes the Miller decision was "militia" based which was wrong to begin with BUT if you read the entire decision they make a concerted effort to broadly define militia and show that the de facto effect of the 2nd Amendment is to allow for every male citizens to legally keep their own arms. While this was an ass backwards way to come to a conclusion that had been accepted all along, it still came to the proper conclusion... one you seem too ****ing stupid to get.

Their reading of the 2nd Amendment was flawed from the beginning. They read it, like you do, to be focused SOLELY around militias and not individuals. Of course, the Hughes court started from this flawed position and made it clear that in FACT the 2nd Amendment does apply to individuals.

Their reading of the 2nd Amendment was flawed from the beginning. They read it, like you do, to be focused SOLELY around militias and not individuals. Of course, the Hughes court started from this flawed position and made it clear that in FACT the 2nd Amendment does apply to individuals.

Okay, so here was my position (to which you said I was a liar, stupid, etc.):

Quote:

Here's my position: the 2nd Amendment's traditional meaning was that it was intrinsically tied into the operation of a state militia.

You've agreed that U.S. v. Miller fits that description. Are we ready for another case?